If there were to be a one-dimensional axis (not saying there should be, but) I think the Libertarian - Authoritarian axis would be the more relevant one than Left - Right.

If you're in the Authoritarian half, the Left-Right differential just relates to what values and objectives the state should be imposing upon the people. The Libertarian-Authoritarian axis determines whether (or to what extent) they should even be doing that at all, and thus is more fundamental.

"He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn’t take place" (Ud 4.8)
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)
"Transition to greatness" (Donald J. Trump)

It's interesting that whenever the topic of the political compass comes up (here and also at DWT and DWM), most of us come out strongly on the libertarian scale (small l). We have our differences on the economic scale, but we all tend to agree that social liberties are good.

Nah, if you look at all the nations run by centrists, they are democracies. If you look at all the nations run by extremists, they are most un-democratic. Not that centrists are perfect and have shangri-la countries, no, they have their corruption too, but at least mostly democratic.

Nah, if you look at all the nations run by centrists, they are democracies. If you look at all the nations run by extremists, they are most un-democratic. Not that centrists are perfect and have shangri-la countries, no, they have their corruption too, but at least mostly democratic.

Well you are talking about entire nations, but the article is about individuals. Not sure the same applies in both cases.

That's my experience, too, more or less. I have been leftish since my late teens but now I am further left - not "too far" of course, in my own judgement, but who is?
I think many good people in USA are in the same situation: the political landscape has moved to the Right (Hard Right, Neo-liberal Right) and anyone with a social conscience is now radical-Left as a consequence. But the American spectrum, as a whole, is even further Right than ours.

The Horseshoe Theory is fine. It is who or what that defines what is left, right, extreme left and right that appears to be the issue. The Horseshoe Theory simply refers to the extremes starting to look alike, for example in the way that both become authoritarian. As Seth noted, perhaps the horseshoe should be inverted to indicate the move toward authoritarianism on the compass scale.

It is political consensus, politicians, journalists, and pundits who tend to identify what is extreme left, not the horseshoe.

I think you would need to define "social conscience" in order for this to be taken seriously, because the logical implication of your statement is that others don't have it.

A quick Internet search gives a dictionary meaning of "a sense of responsibility or concern for the problems and injustices of society", but this is not an exclusive trait of the "radical-Left" (whether real or perceived). Many people share this concern but also have the historical awareness to understand that socialism and communism increase and worsen "the problems and injustices of society", rather than alleviate them.

"He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn’t take place" (Ud 4.8)
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)
"Transition to greatness" (Donald J. Trump)

The Horseshoe Theory is fine. It is who or what that defines what is left, right, extreme left and right that appears to be the issue. The Horseshoe Theory simply refers to the extremes starting to look alike

So people who support for example social democracy are now cast as extremists but are actually not authoritarian and don't look all that much like fascists. Hence the horseshoe theory misleads people, as you can see by Paul's reaction above where anything that resembles social democracy is conflated with socialism/communism. That is my point.

This is a major problem in France right now. It is the "far left" party that now supports policies that were formerly supported by the center-left, since the center-left has shifted at best to a centrist position, and the center has moved very hard to the right (just like in the 80s with Reagan in USA and Thatcher in UK), which is the whole reason for the yellow vests movement. But people who formerly supported the center-left don't identify with the "far-left", all the less that the leader of that "far left" party has been propped up by the establishment and is just a self-serving douchebag who happens to know how to make a speech. This race to the center is being designed to kill the democratic process. In my opinion.

I always thought this one-dimensional left-right dichotomy is pretty arbitrary. If I'm informed correctly, it first came up in the British parliament where the "nobles" sat on the right and the "commoners" on the left, or something like that. But societies, especially nowadays, are much more diverse than that.

That people cling so tightly to this arbitrary classification into "left" and "right" seems utterly absurd to me. It does not seem to serve any purpose other than to engender hostility.

It is not even clear to me what "left" and "right" means anymore.

"Right" can mean "conservative", or it can also mean "racist", "xenophobic", "gun-loving", whatever. Depending on who uses the term the implications are very different.

"Left" can mean "socialist", "communist", "egalitarian", "progressive", whatever. Depending on who uses the term the implications are very different.

I think most sane people are "politically right" in some senses of that word in some situations, and "politically left" in some senses of that word in some situations. But it would be more helpful to use clearer language in any of these instances, instead of bizarrely pitting a fantasized "left" against a fantasized "right".

instead of bizarrely pitting a fantasized "left" against a fantasized "right".

It is not bizarre to me. It's millennia old

Divide and rule (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

The way I see it, the sovereign here is the oligarchy that owns the media whose primary function, imo, is to divide people on issues of no importance to the oligarchy, so that it can continue its one-party rule in the background